Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to getlegal permission to quote David Kithil's comments. Permission wasgranted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages andparagraphs in the bill and why it is so bad.hits everything right on the head, and the opposition you may encountercannot argue over these points:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievablethat our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a billloaded with so many wrong-headed elements.

We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order tomake coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of usbelieve our federal government can manage a new program any better thanthe bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financialmess of those two programs.

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it isestimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employeeswill be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansionof a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we aregoing to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protectingour borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more lawenforcement/firefighters out there."

NOW, here comes the good stuff:

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S.residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to anindividual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronicfund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government)for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not betreated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up withthat?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless ofspecialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospitalexpansion;however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planningconsultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an"end-of-life planning" seminar every five years.

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors canwrite an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to membersof Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the SocialSecurity system and have a well-funded private plan that covers theirretirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believethey would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound forthe future."

Honorable David KithilMarble Falls , Texas

All of the above should give you all the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all your email contacts.

Calm down, ferschitz. The campaign finance case isn't the end of the world. Corporations can buy ads. Big deal. So can unions. And, there are, or will be, disclosure rules.

Besides, if you want corporate slavery, try the current (near dead) Senate health-care proposal of an individual mandate without a public option. Loose version: you MUST buy insurance, but it has to be from a private company unless you qualify fore Medicaid/aire. Yippee.

That's all well and good, except that for every dollar unions give to politics business gives 10. Its nowhere near a level playing field.

As for disclosure, we already have that. People don't care about disclosure. Or more accurately, the small but important percentage of swing voters who are actually affected by brainless attack ads don't care.

Just got my group's health insurance rates in for the new year--we're looking at a 46% increase in 2010 premiums. I guess they've gotta recoup some of that million dollars per day they've been spending to fight real reform in the health care bill. I'm thinking of self-insuring.

I agree that I am somewhat frantic about the Supreme Court decision, but, well, I guess we'll all see. IMHO I think it's quite frightening & of a very serious concern, and I have real concern about how this will affect us. But it is just my opinion.

However, KO last night seemed to share my own feelings, which he voiced in a special comment on 1/21/10. Several others on KO & RM seem also to share my level of concern. Just saying....

Anon 1 again here: Well, I realize that union v. corps isn't a fair fight. But, not every corporation will support right-wing nonsense. Besides, from a free speech perspective, I'm not sure the decision is wrongly decided. It's a mixed bag.

True, not every corporation will put up their money. But its scary to think that even one citibank, one exxon, one walmart, makes more in profits in a year (or even a quarter) than was spent on the entire political cycle in 2008.

As for the decision itself, I never again want to here conservatives complain about "activist" judges.

For some real fun, look up Thomas's dissent on one of the points -- he thinks the Court should abolish even the disclosure requirement because of those dastardly gay rights activists attacking honest Prop 8 supporters.

Read Justice Stephen's quite lengthy and well-reasoned dissent. He expresses a great deal of concern about this decision and was most against it. Justice Stephens is in his mid-80s; knows quite a lot about the constitutional & legal issues involved, and I hold him in high regard.

CJ Roberts is a crook of the highest order and was rewarded witht his position by the Bush family.

I hope I'm a million percent wrong in my henny-penny freak-out, but some of the other more trustworthy justices on the SCOTUS have expressed deep concerns about this opinion.

Ok: 'nuff said. And I agree w/gruaud. Most often the right is merely projecting onto the left all of the nefarious, dangerous and wrong-headed stuff that they are doing themselves.

Welcome to the Right-Wing Forward Museum

MyRightWingDad.net is a museum dedicated to following the course of American history through a unique lens -- the emails "Red-America" forwards worldwide. Take a look around the archive using the keywords below, and leave a comment or two.

This museum displays unedited, often offensive and untrue material with no endorsement intended by curators or contributors.